WTF is wrong with the ICC ? You would think when an Umpire has been so much under criticism for his performance not only in the Test but also for his cash demand of $500,000 in the aftermath and with impending hearing coming up over next few days , Common Sense would dictate that Darrell be kept out of Champions Trophy particularly given the Champions Trophy is in the subcontinent. But unfortunately not many at the ICC seem to have common sense or any sense at all.

Here's a poll - Do you think Darrell Hair should be allowed to stand as an Umpire at the Champions Trophy ?

Whether Hair was right or wrong about the ball-tampering accusations, the ICC should have waited until after the hearing to announce whether he was to stand in the Champions Trophy or not. By appointing Hair for the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is just stoking the fire.

Whether Hair was right or wrong about the ball-tampering accusations, the ICC should have waited until after the hearing to announce whether he was to stand in the Champions Trophy or not. By appointing Hair for the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is just stoking the fire.

Thats absurd logic. Going by that same logic, Pakistan should not have been allowed into the Champions Trophy before the outcome of the hearing. It works both ways.

I voted Yes. He deserves the same presumption of innocence as Inzamam and the Pakistani guys. Until the facts of the case have been determined in a better forum than trial by media/internet for either party, I have no problem with Hair standing matches, or the alleged ball-tamperers playing.

Originally Posted by Irfan

We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team

Thats absurd logic. Going by that same logic, Pakistan should not have been allowed into the Champions Trophy before the outcome of the hearing. It works both ways.

That makes no sense. Firstly, the ICC have a choice as to what umpires they appoint for the trophy - they can't pick and choose what teams they want. Secondly, Pakistan were already to play in the Champions Trophy - Hair wasn't confirmed to umpire in the tournament. Thirdly, Hair has (rightly or wrongly) been the one accused of bias (on this incident and others), so it's obviously going to be controversial to appoint him for the trophy - every decision he makes will come under scrutiny. In fact, your logic would be more sensible if you also argued that Inzy should be allowed to play in the Champions Trophy no matter what the decision of the hearing is.

If the hearing proves Hair is correct, then there is no problem. However, by saying that he will umpire in the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is provoking certain teams and is setting itself up for controversy. Not the most sensible move.

That makes no sense. Firstly, the ICC have a choice as to what umpires they appoint for the trophy - they can't pick and choose what teams they want. Secondly, Pakistan were already to play in the Champions Trophy - Hair wasn't confirmed to umpire in the tournament. Thirdly, Hair has (rightly or wrongly) been the one accused of bias (on this incident and others), so it's obviously going to be controversial to appoint him for the trophy - every decision he makes will come under scrutiny. In fact, your logic would be more sensible if you also argued that Inzy should be allowed to play in the Champions Trophy no matter what the decision of the hearing is.

If the hearing proves Hair is correct, then there is no problem. However, by saying that he will umpire in the tournament before the outcome of the hearing, the ICC is provoking certain teams and is setting itself up for controversy. Not the most sensible move.

Simply lack of choice when it comes to teams isn't an excuse. Hair is on the Elite panel and the ICC have every right to pick him. Thirdly, Pakistan are the ones trying to fight off claims of ball tampering. If every decision Hair makes will be under scrutiny, it is safe to expect that every action Pakistan takes on the field will be too. I haven't opposed Inzy being allowed to play the Champions Trophy. I have only opposed the notion you have that Hair shouldn't be allowed while Inzy gets a free run. Also it is hypocrisy to claim that the ICC is setting itself up for controversy by proposing Hair's name while not opposing with the same passion the statements made by the Pakistanis that they would boycott the tournament if Hair figured in it.

Simply lack of choice when it comes to teams isn't an excuse. Hair is on the Elite panel and the ICC have every right to pick him. Thirdly, Pakistan are the ones trying to fight off claims of ball tampering. If every decision Hair makes will be under scrutiny, it is safe to expect that every action Pakistan takes on the field will be too. I haven't opposed Inzy being allowed to play the Champions Trophy. I have only opposed the notion you have that Hair shouldn't be allowed while Inzy gets a free run. Also it is hypocrisy to claim that the ICC is setting itself up for controversy by proposing Hair's name while not opposing with the same passion the statements made by the Pakistanis that they would boycott the tournament if Hair figured in it.

1. Inzy wouldn't get a free run if found guilty - the thing is, the decision will be made after the hearing - same as what should have been done with Hair. I haven't suggested Inzy should be allowed to play either. Again, if he is to play, it'll all depend on what happens at the hearing.
2. The Pakistanis haven't said they will boycott the tournament if Hair umpires.

Dasa - if the hearing finds that someone in the Pakistan team DID tamper with the ball, or at least that Hair had reasonable cause to suspect they had, would your concern at his standing in the Champion's Trophy cease?

I don't see what the problem is - if the hearing concludes that Hair was seriously out of line, then I don't doubt the ICC will drop, or at least "rest" him from the Elite Panel and the tournament. Until that happens, he's still one of the Panel, he's an official of the governing body of the sport, and teams aren't allowed to veto the appointment of umpires.

While Hair remains on the Panel, they pretty much can't leave him out of the normal rotation of umpires - doing so would amount to prejudging the results of the hearing and make Hair a lame (if not dead) duck. It also sets a pretty disasterous precedent and would make any attempt to ever again enforce respect for umpires an absolute joke.